These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] New form of Delayed Local for Known Space.

Author
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#61 - 2012-05-18 18:51:50 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
A.) In your design, there is NO WAY a target in space can evade being caught by a covert gang. The only defense they have is to prevent the cloakys coming into system (unrealistic) or hope the cloakers never come (unrealistic). (i.e. Covert Cloakers == GOD MODE)

It's not like there's many people doing anything out in nullsec outside of fleets anyways, so might as well just get it over with and remove local altogether so people'll stop whining about how local is such a powerful intel tool.


Because most people believe having an intel tool (local) that provides us with too much information is far better than only having a blatantly inadequate intel tool (dscan). I understand that WH dwellers get by alright with only dscan, but they also have much better rewards, sleepers that switch targets, and limited outsider traffic due to WH mechanics.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#62 - 2012-05-20 08:32:53 UTC
Sorry Gizznitt for taking ages to reply, RL and all that.

As I often find with these long back and forth debates/discussions, the real message gets lost in ever branching and diverging discussion. So, I returned to your first post to read again what you said. Now correct me if I'm wrong , but really you object to the idea of players preying on other players doing PvE. You came up with a great list of things you do in game, but all but one involved attacking others that are looking for PvP or in the process of traveling. The one that might be used to attack PvEers "AFK cloaking" you described as "pathetic" which shows you have a pretty strong emotional hostility to the activity. You don't like players that target PvEers. Your comments about different fits also suggests that you really think PvP and PvE should be separated. Am I correct?

I believe that fundamentally EVE has the points of vulnerability backwards atm. At present you're pretty safe when PvEing in Null or you can forgo what risks there are in Null and go to High Sec and risk even less. However, travel is dangerous. It should be that travel is safer (weaker gate camp mechanics), and that whenever you access resources (PvE) you're more at risk. PvE should be thought of as fully part of the PvP dynamic, it fuels the machines of war and those harvesting it should be vulnerable to machines of war.

So, where does this fit in with the Local/Cloaking issue. I don't just think that cloaked ships should be less vulnerable flying about, I think they all should be, but especially smaller classes. Conflict and risk should come with interactions that can gain you something, So when mining or shooting rats you should be vulnerable to an attacker, and those attackers should they come should be vulnerable to traps and counter ambushes. RATs should change so that there isn't PvE and PvP fits, just ship fits, (not that it's impossible now to PvE in PvP fits, it's just less efficient). Now with all this in mind the CovOps ship while still the master of surprise, is like all others vulnerable at the point of interaction, because aside from travel and gathering intel they can't do anything cloaked, and the price for those advantages is gimped stats compared to non CovOps ships.


Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Stealth does not equal invisibility. Anonymity can easily provide you with the ability to hide (aka stealth). Have you ever tried to find waldo? If a stranger comes into system, they might be friend or foe. If friendly strangers are the norm, then unfriendly strangers can often sneak by!! Why isn't this enough for you?? It really sounds like you're asking for easy-mode stealth, where there is very little chance of being found!! Stealth should be about avoiding detection, not removing all ability to be detected!!! Additionally, a good mechanic for stealth should require much more skill than putting a covert cloak on your ship!!!!


Yes I've been telling you Stealth does not have to equal invisibility (see my earlier DFO examples), I'm glad you accept that now. However, in EVE it does, due particularly to Local and Overview mechanics. I'm sorry but really Gizznitt you know this is BS, organized players (which you would expect from those in Null that aren't renters) are going to be able to figure out pretty quickly if one of the anonymous pilots in system are not one of them. In fact I'm fairly certain some metagame method will be engineered to make it rather effortless for them to do so. At this point, we're back to broken Cloaks, and not in a situation where cloak hunting can be introduced without being completely unbalanced. Friendly strangers, seriously? How much of Null is controlled by NRDS alliances?


Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

First of all, when your proposal unbalances cloaks, you really need to include the "extra's" that bring them back into balance!! Secondly, your "extra's" do NOTHING to make hunting an aware cloaker in system even remotely viable. Have you EVER tried probing down a ship that knows you're probing them? It's tedious, as the ship warps whenever probes appear on scan. Usually, for probing to work, your target needs to be slow and/or oblivious to the probes. The only thing you'll catch with your anti-cloak technology are afk cloakers!!!


Have you noticed how many different aspects of the game we have touched on in our back and forth arguing? If I Included all the "extras" my proposal would be so damn long no one would even read it. I linked the other thread, and people are more than welcome as they have to bring up issues in relation to other aspects of the game and for us to discuss those, but to include every possible thing changing Local and all the surrounding arguments touch on in my OP is completely unreasonable.

Had you considered that in my proposal and accompanying ideas a CovOps ship is stripped of current Local Intel as well? That in the Cloak hunting idea, the ship used to hunt cloaked ships is itself CovOps? I would say in this system CovOps ships are more vulnerable than near unprobable Booster ships are currently. ..and of course when/if a CovOps ship actually uncloaks and engages a target it's extremely vulnerable.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#63 - 2012-05-22 07:31:05 UTC
Xorv wrote:
I believe that fundamentally EVE has the points of vulnerability backwards atm. At present you're pretty safe when PvEing in Null or you can forgo what risks there are in Null and go to High Sec and risk even less. However, travel is dangerous. It should be that travel is safer (weaker gate camp mechanics), and that whenever you access resources (PvE) you're more at risk. PvE should be thought of as fully part of the PvP dynamic, it fuels the machines of war and those harvesting it should be vulnerable to machines of war.


First of all, if you use a scout and/or bookmarks, travling in nullsec is very safe. I'm red to almost every nullsec alliance in-game, and I've been to EVERY region of the game (often solo'ing in ab fit frigates). Sure, you can construct really potent and viscous gatecamps, but they are few and far between (except for certain areas), and easily avoidable if you know how to play.

In theory, I'm ok with making gate camps a little less effective and making nullsec PvE a little more risky. However, I don't think making gate camps completely ineffective, nor making PvE insanely risky is appropriate. To give numbers, currently, I think you have a 2% chance of dying to a roaming gang while ratting. With your proposal, I think you have a 90% chance of dying to a roaming gang, especially if you rat long enough for your system to register the NPC kills!! This is a ridiculous swing of the scale!!

Xorv wrote:
So, where does this fit in with the Local/Cloaking issue. I don't just think that cloaked ships should be less vulnerable flying about, I think they all should be, but especially smaller classes. Conflict and risk should come with interactions that can gain you something, So when mining or shooting rats you should be vulnerable to an attacker, and those attackers should they come should be vulnerable to traps and counter ambushes. RATs should change so that there isn't PvE and PvP fits, just ship fits, (not that it's impossible now to PvE in PvP fits, it's just less efficient). Now with all this in mind the CovOps ship while still the master of surprise, is like all others vulnerable at the point of interaction, because aside from travel and gathering intel they can't do anything cloaked, and the price for those advantages is gimped stats compared to non CovOps ships.


1.) Smaller vessels and cloaky vessels ARE ALREADY hard to catch and much, much less vulnerable to enemies than bigger ships!!!
2.) When mining or shoting rats, you ARE ALREADY vulnerable to an attacker. Typically, the only viable defense is to AVOID being attacked.
3.) Changing Rats is a nice idea, but until that happens, PvE fits ARE different than PvP fits. (note: I typically rat in PvP capable ships.. but I can't effectively engage a gang... all it means I can sometimes take some of them down with me!)
4.) Covert Ships are not combat incompetent. Stealth bombers insta-lock targets and do good dps, Recon's have very potent EWAR bonuses that can shut down any opponent! Covert Hotdrops can't be prevented... And ships that warp while cloaked are extremely hard to catch as is...

So, why do you need to significantly boost these ships by making them invulnerable to reconnasaince!!?!??!??

Xorv wrote:
I'm sorry but really Gizznitt you know this is BS, organized players (which you would expect from those in Null that aren't renters) are going to be able to figure out pretty quickly if one of the anonymous pilots in system are not one of them... Friendly strangers, seriously?


Most of nullsec is in a huge bluefests with their neighboring alliances. This means most of the traffic that comes THROUGH their system IS friendly, and with my local suggestion, they would typically be anonymous (Hence, they are FRIENDLY STRANGERS). Many, many nullsec residents have alts, in alt corps, that wont necessarily appear as a known local member. If you're just hanging out in a system, sure the more organized locals can do some math and realize the unknown is probably hostile, but so what!!! I don't see any good reason to make camping a system for killmails easier...

Xorv wrote:
Had you considered that in my proposal and accompanying ideas a CovOps ship is stripped of current Local Intel as well? That in the Cloak hunting idea, the ship used to hunt cloaked ships is itself CovOps? I would say in this system CovOps ships are more vulnerable than near unprobable Booster ships are currently. ..and of course when/if a CovOps ship actually uncloaks and engages a target it's extremely vulnerable.


Yes, they are stripped of intel. However, you're proposal gives them infinite time to hunt a system for targets. They can safely monitor stations or gates, and take action when a target of opportunity presents itself. The locals have no real defense, except to do random scans of a system...

And why do you consider covert ops ships "extremely" vulnerable? Especially in your proposal. I currently use stealth bombers and covert ops ships to tackle targets long enough for backup to arrive, and rarely lose them. I often SOLO jaguars, wolf's, and enyos in a HELIOS. With your proposal, falcons and rapiers won't appear in local, allowing a covert gang to not only instalock a target with a Stealth bomber, but they can then jam and immobilize most ships, leaving very LITTLE risk to a covert gang!!!!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#64 - 2012-05-22 07:32:43 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong , but really you object to the idea of players preying on other players doing PvE.,. You don't like players that target PvEers. Your comments about different fits also suggests that you really think PvP and PvE should be separated. Am I correct?


Incorrect. I target PvE'ers all the time, especially when soloing or small gang roaming. I don't do it by endlessly lurking in their system until they get careless, I do it by actually hunting them down. I enter a system, use the dscanner to quickly locate targets, and I attempt to catch them (something that requires at least a little skill!!!) I think making it mindlessly easy to hunt and gank PvE'ers is NOT healthy for nullsec, and that's exactly what your proposal enables. As for PvE vs PvP fits... my opinion is irrelevant, because PvE and PvP fits ARE separate (note: I'd like more sleeper/incursion types of nullsec PvE, because those PvE gangs can easily be transformed into PvP gangs).

Much of EvE's PvE activities should take into account Risk vs Reward. Currently, nullsec income for average joe is not very high, especially when you consider the risks associated with it in comparison to WH's, Incursions, and High-sec missioning. Yes, nullsec ratting is fairly safe, but its a little balanced with the rewards. Your suggestion destroys any safety a nullsec ratter has, essentially turning nullsec PvE into extremely high risk without touching the rewards. I find that extremely problematic!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really sounds like you want to camp a system while being undetected, so you can mindlessly gank vulnerable pilots. I think nullsec hunting should involve roaming from system to system, and actually HUNTING targets BEFORE they realize you're a threat. While I consider camping a valid form of gameplay, it requires so little skill as is that I really I do NOT think it should be made easier!!!!!
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#65 - 2012-05-25 01:52:09 UTC


I don't get your argument anymore Gizznitt.

You're claiming it's easy to avoid the majority of gatecamps, which we can assume at a minimum means bubbles fast locking tacklers and some DPS, but killing ratters is somehow easy, and I'm assuming we're still talking Null here not Wormholes. This despite that the ratter will know the instant you enter their system by having Local Chat window visible and will instantly know you're not a friendly (because you wont show up as a blue). Who are these PvE people you're killing? They must be either afk and not botting, very careless and stupid, or newbies ignorant of basic game mechanics.

It's pretty obvious how what you are saying doesn't add up. I don't doubt your EVE knowledge, I doubt the sincerity of your arguments. I think you're just pulling anything you can in hope to justify your position, which is largely to keep the status quo. I mean really, using stealth bombers and CovOps to get tackle until your gang arrives... right you have a gang of ships (likely not even CovOps) backing you up that's not an indication of how tough CovOps ships are, could have been an industrial ship. And the Helios comment... really? How is it CovOps if you don't even fit a cloak? ...or are you killing people in a Helios with one gun?

No, in regards to PvEers in Null, the end result should be that a reasonably competent player who is not AFK should still have a reasonable degree of vulnerability to another solo pilot while they are engaging in PvE. Not what you're effectively stating, that a solo newbie or dumb person should be vulnerable to an entire gang, and any other circumstances PvEers are safe.

There's a lot of stuff you say which I agree with, I just don't see any of it leading to the same conclusions on Local and Cloaking as you.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#66 - 2012-05-25 17:12:19 UTC



Somewhere there is a very big communication mishap... let me explain:

IMO, with the current game mechanics:

1.) Avoiding a gatecamp is fairly easy. You just need a prepared scout to guide you along your path. If there IS a gate camp you simply avoid it. Getting through a gate camp is quite a bit harder, as it requires the ability to kite off the camp (speedy ships), the ability to avoid being tackled (covert ships), or the ability to fight through the camp... In a covert ship, it's mildly risky, but typically not to hard. In big ship, its almost impossible to get through a gate camp...

2.) Hunting ratters is NOT easy... KILLING ratters is VERY EASY. Most ratters have blatant weaknesses in their setup which can be exploited by any competent PvPer. I can point to many examples of PvE ships solo'd be frigates. The only difficulty in hunting ratters, is tackling them!!!

3.) My Helios and SB examples are there for two reasons: A.) To brag about my combat helios... and B.) To emphasize that these ships can easily perfrom a tackling role, and are NOT "extremely" vulnerable. Just because the majority of time these ships are not fit for combat, does NOT mean they are completely combat neutered. If people fit them for cloaky tackling, they are very effective!

With your changes:
1.) Hunting ratters becomes EXTREMELY EASY. By making Ratters easy to catch, you're removing the only hard part about hunting a PvE ship. Once caught, they're easily killed. Especially since your mechanic allows you to bring an entire cloaky gang ON-GRID with them before you decloak and aggress.


Xorv wrote:
Now, in regards to PvEers in Null, the end result should be that a reasonably competent player who is not AFK should still have a reasonable degree of vulnerability to another solo pilot while they are engaging in PvE. Not what you're effectively stating, that a solo newbie or dumb person should be vulnerable to an entire gang, and any other circumstances PvEers are safe.

There's a lot of stuff you say which I agree with, I just don't see any of it leading to the same conclusions on Local and Cloaking as you.


1.) If a PvEer in Nullsec is vulnerable to a solo covert ship, the are even MORE vulnerable to a gang of those ships. You might want to solo cloaky camp a system in a covert ship, and kill targets of opportunity with maybe a little risk to yourself... However, most people will use your mechanics, bring out entirely covert gangs, and gank targets with virtually NO RISK to themselves.

2.) What is a reasonable degree of vulnerability? In my mind, a reasonable degree of vulnerability is that for every 40 scout pilots coming through system looking for targets, I get snagged ONCE. With your setup, for every 40 covert scout pilots that come through system, I get caught 39 times or more!! In EvE, once you are tackled (especially in a belt), you rarely get free... Considering the rewards of ratting need to be balanced with the risks of ratting, how can you possibly think your system is appropriate?

Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#67 - 2012-05-27 17:04:55 UTC
Xorv wrote:
No, in regards to PvEers in Null, the end result should be that a reasonably competent player who is not AFK should still have a reasonable degree of vulnerability to another solo pilot while they are engaging in PvE.
And now for some numbers on how risky space should be.

If you are going to live in a space you need to get more resources out of it than you lose in it.

Let's say I buy a belt ratting BC that with today's market prices costs 100 mil. And we say, "anyone living in null should get 20% back on whatever they put into it" So that belt ratting BC should survive long enough to make 120 mil in bounties before exploding. A 200 mil haven running battleship should be able to make 240 mil in bounties before exploding. And a 400 mil hulk should be able to mine 480 mil worth of minerals before exploding.

So back to our 200 mil haven running BS example. I think 240 mil worth of havens is about 8 havens or so. So if someone is really trying to catch ratters they should be able to catch 1 in 8 people running a haven. That's about a 12.5% mortality rate in havens. You could even say something like "Havens should have enough scramming frigates to keep someone warp scrambled 12.5% of the time."


The problem with both of your arguments is that they both result in two extremes of safety and mortality while trying to pve in null.

With local in place and nobody cloaked in local you have plenty of warning when someone enters system between them having to scan down your site (10 seconds) and then the time it takes to warp to you. Basically you just have to be paying attention and warp out as soon as you see someone in local.

With no local null becomes a cloaky hot droppers paradise. Every system has a cyno alt in it looking for wrecks on D scan. Every site becomes a death trap.

If you are going to remove local (Which does feel a bit to meta-gamey) Then you need to replace it with an intel tool that feels safe enough for the ratters, and risky enough for the gankers.

Personally I'd like to see something that has more to do with game mechanics and less to do with a chat program. Something that cares more about the scan resolution of my ship and not weather I pop into local.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#68 - 2012-05-28 07:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Gizznitt, your last post certainly did make more sense, I still don't follow you to the same conclusion, but it no longer sounds like total crazy talk. I do think your setting scenarios where the player that is PvEing is as hopeless as you can conceive; solo, no friends or alies, no alts, doesn't watch DScan, fits for pure PvE, and so on. Where as at the other end its an organized PvP gang, with scouts, fast DScaners/probers, no other possible threats but the poor lone PvEer etc. That's not exactly going to lead you to a balanced conclusion.

Wolodymyr wrote:

If you are going to live in a space you need to get more resources out of it than you lose in it.
[...]
The problem with both of your arguments is that they both result in two extremes of safety and mortality while trying to pve in null.

With local in place and nobody cloaked in local you have plenty of warning when someone enters system between them having to scan down your site (10 seconds) and then the time it takes to warp to you. Basically you just have to be paying attention and warp out as soon as you see someone in local.

With no local null becomes a cloaky hot droppers paradise. Every system has a cyno alt in it looking for wrecks on D scan. Every site becomes a death trap.

If you are going to remove local (Which does feel a bit to meta-gamey) Then you need to replace it with an intel tool that feels safe enough for the ratters, and risky enough for the gankers.

Personally I'd like to see something that has more to do with game mechanics and less to do with a chat program. Something that cares more about the scan resolution of my ship and not weather I pop into local.


I completely agree that resources to be gained in dangerous space need be worth the risk. This is the key reason High Sec PvE is such a huge problem in EVE, particularly high income low risk activities such as Incursions. That needs to change. To my knowledge EVE is the only Sandbox MMO built around player conflict that has high value PvE in areas protected by unbeatable NPCs.

I also agree there could be more intel tools, especially in the event of Local Intel as it is now disappearing. The idea presented here doesn't completely remove Local Intel, but it certainly makes it far less effective. Also while not part of the OP proposal, it is made with assumption that a form of Cloak Hunting is also introduced. CCP has hinted they want to change Local several times over the years, but in their last meeting with CSM 6 they also brought up their interest in Cloak Hunting. Something I strongly believe cannot happen without first doing away with Local Chat's 100% effortless intel function, or the result could well be the same as removing cloaks from the game.

Given the ideas in the OP, and the additions mentioned in the thread (that the delay on showing Local also applies to ships entering the system seeing ships already in it, means to hunt cloaking ships, an improved DScan, and of course an appropriately balanced Risk vs Reward across all of EVE space) what would you suggest to bring the proposal to a point you consider a balanced point that you would support?
Malcorath Sacerdos
Coalition of Brutality
Warped Intentions
#69 - 2012-05-28 09:59:25 UTC
only way id get behind this proposal is if it works both ways

ie if you dont show up on locan local does not show up for you .
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#70 - 2012-05-28 20:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Xorv wrote:
what would you suggest to bring the proposal to a point you consider a balanced point that you would support?
Whelp if we need a new intel tool to replace local then we are going to have to design a new intel tool to replace local. I hate proposing completely new mechanics on the eve forums. But it's the only alternative to arguing around in circles about AFK cloaking.

So here goes.............

1. Remove local as an intel tool. Local is only there for chatting and smack talk. So it'll probably have to be the WH style delayed local.

2. This new intel tool should probably be a beefier and more robust version (and replacement) of D-scan and the system scanner. And it should be automatic so people don't have to keep clicking scan every 10 seconds.

3. All friendly ships (blues) should have some sort of IFF that makes them show up automatically without needing to show up on scan.

4. The new intel tool should be entirely based on in game mechanics. Maybe the time it would take to detect someone new comming in system could be based on a combination of sig radius, scan resolution, distance in AU, active modules, weither or not they are warping, and any other status effects.

5. By basing detection on gme mechanics this makes ships in the scout role more important. Think of the interceptor with it's low sig radius and high warp speed. It could get to sites faster and take longer to detect. Jumping in a scout ahead of the rest of the roaming gang to catch ratters will be more of an option.

6. Cloaked ships should not be 100% undetectable, this leads into whatever cloak hunting system CCP is working on. Cloaky hunting finally needs to be possible.

7. The new intel tool needs to take up less space on screen than what most people use when they pull out local chat. And it'd be nice if it was a little more engaging to look at than a list of people in local.

8. This new intel tool could be some sort of upgradable sov module that people can improve with effort. In highsec / lowsec it should be in it's most informative state (low risk / low reward space) and in wormholes it should be in it's lowest informative state (high risk / high reward space).

9. Personally I'd like ship detection in the new intel tool to be time based. So you will always eventually show up on scan, it's just the amount of time it takes for someone to show up that changes based on how slippery their ship is. This would make camping a system less effective than fast roaming gangs when trying to catch people. Although this is just personal preference. I'd like to see more roaming gangs as a gameplay style, instead of people just periodically checking cyno alts to see if anyone is doing anything in local.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#71 - 2012-05-29 18:39:53 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
Xorv wrote:
what would you suggest to bring the proposal to a point you consider a balanced point that you would support?
Whelp if we need a new intel tool to replace local then we are going to have to design a new intel tool to replace local. I hate proposing completely new mechanics on the eve forums. But it's the only alternative to arguing around in circles about AFK cloaking.

So here goes.............

1. Remove local as an intel tool. Local is only there for chatting and smack talk. So it'll probably have to be the WH style delayed local.

2. This new intel tool should probably be a beefier and more robust version (and replacement) of D-scan and the system scanner. And it should be automatic so people don't have to keep clicking scan every 10 seconds.

3. All friendly ships (blues) should have some sort of IFF that makes them show up automatically without needing to show up on scan.

4. The new intel tool should be entirely based on in game mechanics. Maybe the time it would take to detect someone new comming in system could be based on a combination of sig radius, scan resolution, distance in AU, active modules, weither or not they are warping, and any other status effects.

5. By basing detection on gme mechanics this makes ships in the scout role more important. Think of the interceptor with it's low sig radius and high warp speed. It could get to sites faster and take longer to detect. Jumping in a scout ahead of the rest of the roaming gang to catch ratters will be more of an option.

6. Cloaked ships should not be 100% undetectable, this leads into whatever cloak hunting system CCP is working on. Cloaky hunting finally needs to be possible.

7. The new intel tool needs to take up less space on screen than what most people use when they pull out local chat. And it'd be nice if it was a little more engaging to look at than a list of people in local.

8. This new intel tool could be some sort of upgradable sov module that people can improve with effort. In highsec / lowsec it should be in it's most informative state (low risk / low reward space) and in wormholes it should be in it's lowest informative state (high risk / high reward space).

9. Personally I'd like ship detection in the new intel tool to be time based. So you will always eventually show up on scan, it's just the amount of time it takes for someone to show up that changes based on how slippery their ship is. This would make camping a system less effective than fast roaming gangs when trying to catch people. Although this is just personal preference. I'd like to see more roaming gangs as a gameplay style, instead of people just periodically checking cyno alts to see if anyone is doing anything in local.


This is very close to what I suggested: Replace Local with an Intel Tool

The few changes I'd strongly suggest:
I think intel should automatically be shared with fleet members in system...

While having alliance members appear automatically, I'm vehemently against Blues appearing automaticly: To explain why: Large bluefests have very little drawbacks. However, if having lots of blues means having lots of "I don't instantly know you are friendly" traffic, the member's within the bluefest region will typically become more complacent to unknown traffic, resulting in easier pickings for the roaming gangs. In short, lots of friends means it's harder to identify your enemies (unless you're actually working together)... which is a VERY GOOD thing!!!!



Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#72 - 2012-05-29 19:02:27 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Gizznitt, your last post certainly did make more sense, I still don't follow you to the same conclusion, but it no longer sounds like total crazy talk. I do think your setting scenarios where the player that is PvEing is as hopeless as you can conceive; solo, no friends or alies, no alts, doesn't watch DScan, fits for pure PvE, and so on. Where as at the other end its an organized PvP gang, with scouts, fast DScaners/probers, no other possible threats but the poor lone PvEer etc. That's not exactly going to lead you to a balanced conclusion.


I don't know if you've been on many fast moving, gank-the-local "targets of opportunity" style roams. But 90% of the time, the PvE'er gets caught in a belt, anomaly, or while traveling at a gate by the scout of a gang. Then the hostiles comes in and nukes them. The majority of the time, once your roaming gang lands, the chances of survival for the target are almost zero. Once the hostiles catch a ship or two, the locals typically safe up until you leave, or ship up to chase you out of their area. Standing home defense fleets are rarely proactively setup, and are almost always a REACTIONARY force formed up to counter the hostile gang (i.e. requiring several minutes to organize).

Currently, the most effective way to survive these roaming gangs is to avoid being caught... Once caught, the second method to survive is to escape the tackler before the gang can arrive. Failing that, you have to tank the gang until you're backup can survive. And very few ships can survive even 4x AF dps for more than 60 s.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#73 - 2012-05-29 20:39:09 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
First, I would like to say I dont support this. I've lived everywhere except WH in my times and local works just fine. Attacking people in their own space is easy enough as it is (and this isn't coming from the person being attacked by the way).

Secondly, this has been proposed a million and seven times. If you want to bring it up again search for it and post your support in that thread instead of posting another one. (Also, by the way, the fact its been braught up so often and shot down so often says something about how little support it gets each time.)

My 2 cents... Or pence, rather.



Its pretty clear that he wouldn't want to link to the numerous numerous old threads because this idea is bad.

Local allows small gang and solo pvpers the ability to avoid getting blobbed.

I mean we can go on and on with how bad delayed local is. But some people are so intent on trying to gank pve ships they refuse to listen.

If you don't want local go to a wormhole but leave the other 90% of eve, that prefers to live in a space with local alone.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-05-30 19:23:56 UTC
No to this idea.

Xorv wrote:
Gizznitt, your last post certainly did make more sense, I still don't follow you to the same conclusion, but it no longer sounds like total crazy talk.

After reading the 4 pages of this thread, i find it funny when you said that the one guy who's probably the most sensible one so far has been posting crazy talks.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#75 - 2012-05-31 08:28:58 UTC
Wolodymyr,

Almost everything you posted is either covered by my proposal and linked thread in F&I, or it's something I wouldn't have a strong objection to such as your third point on seeing friendlies.

Going point by point:

1. Remove Local as an Intel tool: Not exactly the approach in this Proposal, but obviously I support this in terms of intent.

2. Improved DScan: Definitely. However, the devil is in the details, I posted a number of ideas on this in the F&I thread. The general idea was a sliding scale between 3 factors, where more of one would mean less of one of the other two. They were Distance of Scan, Angle of Scan in degrees, and Frequency of the Scan in terms of how often the automated scan would activate.

3. Friendlies automatically being identified in scans: Not one of my ideas, but it seems reasonable. At least for Corp/Alliance. I think anything which discourages blueing lots of other entities is a good thing, so I'm not sure I would want it to apply to blues, but it wouldn't be the end of the world to have it either.

4. "The new intel tool should be entirely based on in game mechanics.": I'm not sure what this means in terms of your suggestions since you've only talked about an improved DScan and having Local Chat lose all it's Intel functions. In terms of my proposal the time a ship shows up in Local is based on ship class which while simplistic gives advantage to those ships I believe ought to have an advantage Frigates and Destroyers primarily, and not those ships I believe should not have this advantage such as Tech 3s, unless of course their CovOps in which case they won't show at all if they stay cloaked.

5. "By basing detection on g[a]me mechanics this makes ships in the scout role more important.": My proposal does exactly this, and a ship as used in your example, an Interceptor being a Frigate is the class of ship that benefits the most.

6. Cloaked ships being detectable and a means to hunt them: Agreed, but only after Local Chat Intel is gone and with nothing similar replacing it. Also the detection system must not enhance gate camps in any significant way. Ideally the means of hunting should fall into the same type of gameplay as Cloaked ships themselves, Cat and Mouse, sneaky gameplay. Shadowbane did this reasonably well.

7. Improved GUI for Intel tools that doesn't take up lots of space: Yeah of course, who wouldn't want that?

8. Sov Upgrades to improve Intel functions: My proposal has that.

9. Ship detection in the new Intel tool to be time based, and eventually ships always showing on Scan: My proposal definitely has the first part. The second part of always eventually showing up in the Intel tool is the one point you made that is not part of my proposal and I'm unlikely to rush to add it either. I think Cloaked ships should be discoverable and huntable by very specialized ships in keeping with the cat and mouse type gameplay. However, I don't think cloaked ships should show up in Local or it's replacement.

Really apart from the last point what you listed as what you want to see and what I proposed aren't that far apart as far as I can see, Like a lot of things the details matter, but yeah I like most of your list.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-05-31 11:17:06 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
First, I would like to say I dont support this. I've lived everywhere except WH in my times and local works just fine. Attacking people in their own space is easy enough as it is (and this isn't coming from the person being attacked by the way).

Secondly, this has been proposed a million and seven times. If you want to bring it up again search for it and post your support in that thread instead of posting another one. (Also, by the way, the fact its been braught up so often and shot down so often says something about how little support it gets each time.)

My 2 cents... Or pence, rather.



Its pretty clear that he wouldn't want to link to the numerous numerous old threads because this idea is bad.

Local allows small gang and solo pvpers the ability to avoid getting blobbed.

I mean we can go on and on with how bad delayed local is. But some people are so intent on trying to gank pve ships they refuse to listen.

If you don't want local go to a wormhole but leave the other 90% of eve, that prefers to live in a space with local alone.


So I take it you avoid wormhole space like the plague then?

Bias is not a good idea if your going to be against delayed local.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#77 - 2012-06-01 22:20:47 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The few changes I'd strongly suggest:
I think intel should automatically be shared with fleet members in system...


Actually I would recommend against this for three reasons

1. It makes teamwork more important. I remember ratting when someone would come into local all the non AFK people would start typing in local to get everyone's attention. Now anyone who detected a hostile in local could speak up to warn their slower scanning bretheren. This makes ratting a team effort\

2. You never know who is or is not really friendly. When politics get complicated sometimes blues and reds don't quite hold the same meaning

3. This would make a scout role important. If you were group ratting you could have one guy jack up his sensor strength and be the designated "local watcher" again encouraging group pve.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#78 - 2012-06-02 03:14:51 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The few changes I'd strongly suggest:
I think intel should automatically be shared with fleet members in system...


Actually I would recommend against this for three reasons

1. It makes teamwork more important. I remember ratting when someone would come into local all the non AFK people would start typing in local to get everyone's attention. Now anyone who detected a hostile in local could speak up to warn their slower scanning bretheren. This makes ratting a team effort\

2. You never know who is or is not really friendly. When politics get complicated sometimes blues and reds don't quite hold the same meaning

3. This would make a scout role important. If you were group ratting you could have one guy jack up his sensor strength and be the designated "local watcher" again encouraging group pve.


1.-- By making intl shared between fleet members, it rewards those who are already in fleet. If you are in a fleet together, you moreless are working together. It also means you're more capable to form up a response gang. It also provides a way to share intel with non-alliance members.

2.-- But you do know who is friendly, mostly. That's the point of the standings system.

3.-- You might still want this... it just means his intel is shared with his fleet members too...

Gathering information on your opponents shouldn't be completely handed to you on a silver platter. Have tools to share the intel you took the time to gather makes that intel much more valuable to EVERYONE you share it with!

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#79 - 2012-06-08 01:02:25 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.-- By making intl shared between fleet members, it rewards those who are already in fleet. If you are in a fleet together, you moreless are working together. It also means you're more capable to form up a response gang. It also provides a way to share intel with non-alliance members.


No, I think that would reward people that use multiple accounts. Any part of a new/changed Intel mechanics that is passive in not requiring active player involvement devalues the activity and need for active player intel gatherers and such roles as scouts. I also don't see any need in "rewarding" players for being in a fleet, being in an organized group and having more people to fight with and support you is it's own reward.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#80 - 2012-06-08 02:48:22 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.-- By making intl shared between fleet members, it rewards those who are already in fleet. If you are in a fleet together, you moreless are working together. It also means you're more capable to form up a response gang. It also provides a way to share intel with non-alliance members.


No, I think that would reward people that use multiple accounts. Any part of a new/changed Intel mechanics that is passive in not requiring active player involvement devalues the activity and need for active player intel gatherers and such roles as scouts. I also don't see any need in "rewarding" players for being in a fleet, being in an organized group and having more people to fight with and support you is it's own reward.


The ability to share intel with the fleet make the benefits of an intel gatherer much more tangibley. Furthermore, it allows multiple scouts to pool their intel and get a more accurate representation of what is going on in local. This is the only way to truly scout a system with a large number of pilots!!! In the end, this creates an environment where pilots can be more situationally aware, which is important for being a good pilot.

Does this mean that people can put their alt into a cloaky ship and have it sit and watch a gate, essentially giving easy intel to all in system fleeted with said person... Yes it does... However, I'm leaning towards this being a minor evil. Many systems have several entrances, thereby eliminating the effectiveness of this tactic.

If you're worried about it being too passive, I'd much rather have a "transmit" button that a pilot activates to share the info with fleet members. I think this is a needed mechanic to really bring intel gathering into it's proper role... i.e. intel gathering is done by dedicated intel gathering ships to be shared with the rest of the fleet, which aren't as competent at gathering intel.